ML20209H309
| ML20209H309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8702060023 | |
| Download: ML20209H309 (49) | |
Text
y g
f a
e MIGINAL
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION III!O:
Periodic Briefing on Near-Term Operating Licenses Location:
Washington, D.C.
Date:
Thursday, January 29, 1987 PageS:
1 - 22 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 8702060023 870129
.7 PDR
I d
1 D I SC LA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Ccanission held on Thurs.,
s January 29,,198lh the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N. tJ., (Ja s h i ng t on,
D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain f
12 inaccuracies.
g 13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22 23 24 25
t 4
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
~
PERIODIC BRIEFING ON NEAR TERM OPERATING LICENSES 4
5 Public Meeting 6
7 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 198'7 8
1717 H Street, N.W.
9 Washington, D.C.
10 11 The Commission met, pursuant to Notice, at 12 2:10 p.m., Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman of Commission 13 presiding.
14 15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
16 LANDO W.
ZECH, Jr., Chairman of the Commission 17 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Commissioner 18 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Commissioner 19 KENMETH M. CARR, Commissioner 20 21 NRC STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABEI:
22 S.
Chilk W.
Parler 23 V.
Stello R. Vollmer 24 F. Miraglia B.
Bernero 25 T. Novak l
t i
2 1
AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
2 3
Judge A. Rosenthal 4
Judge R. Lazo 5
P. Tam 6
7
-8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 3
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and 3
gentlemen.
The purpose of today's meeting is to hear the 4
staff's periodic briefing on the status of near term operating 5
licenses.
Commissioner Asselstine is on travel and will not 6
be with us for this a'fternoon's session.
7 The meeting today provides'the staff and the 8
Commission the opportunity to exchange views regarding the 9
status for specific plants that we have decisions on in the 10 near future.
There is no vote associated with today's 11 meeting; it's an information type briefing for the Commission.
12 The first part of the briefing will be in open 13 session and I hope we'll conclude near 3:00 o' clock so we can 14 move into the closed session with the Office of Inspector and 15 Auditor.
16 In addition to the speakers at the table today, I 17 thank Judge Rosenthal -- and is Judge Cotter here, his 18 representative?
And I would ask them to speak up at any time 19 they feel inclined to participate with information that might 20 be of interest to the Commission.
I will call on you 21 occasionally but if I don't, please speak up and if you don't 22 I'll assume that you have nothing to add to what's been said.
23 I understand there are copies of the siides at the 24 back of the room and now I'll ask my fellow Commissioners if 25 they have any opening remarks.
4 1
(No response.]
2 If there are none, then Mr. Stello, would you 3
proceed, please?
4 MR. STELLO:
We hopefully will go through fairly 5
quickly the status of the plants.
We have five plants with 6
low power licenses, two with zero power licenses, 18 plants 7
with OL applications docketed; 13 of them classified as active 8
with 5 inactive, and I'll ask Dick Vollmer to give us a quick 9
review of the highlights and then go into selected plants.
10 MR. VOLLMER:
Fine, thank you.
The plants with low 11 power licenses, as Vic said, there are 5.
On the slide it 12 lists only 4 and that's because Byron at this time we thought 13 might be out of that category even though it's carried as 5 on 14 the first slide.
So Byron 2 has finished their low power 15 physics testing and they are starting in a sequence which 16 would put them in a position to go above 5 percent when so 17 authorized, and we will be coming in and meeting with you 18 tomorrow on Byron 2.
19 Shoreham has been shut down for sometime because 20 there's really nothing to accomplish by operating.
They plan 21 to start up in March or April to perform some additional 22 testing on some systems, HPCI and main safety isolation valve 23 actuators.
But there's, again, nothing in the near term 24 horizon for that plant.
25 Clinton is another one that is currently in their
e o
5 1
testing mode.
They're doing their surveillance testing and finishing up on maintenance and pre-operational testing.
2 3
Initial criticality for that plant is scheduled for about the 4
5th of February, and we have scheduled with the Commission a i
5 full power discussion later on in the month.
4 6
Nine Mile 2 is another one that initial criticality 7
is scheduled now for about mid-February.
As you know, they
{
8 have had their license for sometime, since october, but 9
because of MSIV problems they have not proceeded to load fuel 10 and go critical.
It's currently scheduled to come to the e
11 Commission somewhere early in March for a discussion of full 12 power operation for that.
The staff still has the main steam 13 isolation valve analysis and there are plans with regard to 14 those valves under review.
We haven't finished that review 1
4 15 yet so depending on the outcome of that, it might have an 16 impact on schedule certainly.
17 And finally, on Vogle 1, the low power license was 18 issued in mid-January and as of Monday they had 114 out of 1
19 193 fuel elements loaded.
And again, we're rejecting full i
20 power decision somewhere in March.
l 21 Plants with zero power licenses, Braidwood and i
22 Seabrook, have had their license for sometime and Seabrook, of i
23 l
course, we have no scheduling for full power or any power I
24 operation from Seabrook.
There's a low power estimate for l
i j
25 Braidwood which is currently thought about in March.
And of i
I f
i
e i
6 1
course, that depends on Board decision.
So that is currehtly 2
a Board estimate and they may wish to comment on that.
3 (Slide.)
4 It's the usual practice for us to review the plants 5
that you may have before you for decision within the next year 6
so we've only included those four plants which we have enough 7
confidence that they will go through the full power licensing 8
in the next year.
Those are Palo Verde 3, Beaver Valley 2, 9
South Texas 1 and Braidwood, and I'd like to ask the Licensing 10 Division directors to review those plants briefly for you in 11 that order.
So if you would, Frank, on Palo Verde 3.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Before we go on to that, lat me ask 13 Judge Lazo and Judge Rosenthal if they have any comments on 14 the plants that have been mentioned so far that they should 15 bring to our attention today.
16 JUDGE ROSENTHAL:
No, Mr. Chairman.
17 JUDGE LAZO:
Neither do I.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Proceed, please.
19 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Palo Verde 3 is the third of System 20 80 plant to be licensed at the Palo Verde site.
The 21 construction is complete, their pre-operational testing is 22 underway and the projected fuel load date is March of 1987.
23 As part of the pre-operational testing program in 24 December they had experienced a failure on the emergency 25 diesel generator for Palo Verde 3.
They are estimating that
e i
1 the repairs of thi,s diesel will go beyond March'of 1987 and 2
are to propose an exemption for fuel load to load fuel while 3
the diesels are being repaired.
Their low power testing 4
program would indicate that the diesels will be repaired prior 5
to criticality and we expect to receive that exemption request 6
in the near future, and if acted upon favorably, March 1987 is 7
'a realistic date.
We expect that application shortly.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Saying that they had a 9
failure is putting it mildly.. I mean, --
10 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Catastrophic failure is how we i
j 11 characterized it.
1 I
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's quite accurate, I 13 agree.
It sort of blew itself apart, as I understand it.
4 14 What do we need to infer from all of that?
Is there a generic 15 implication?
16 MR. MIRAGLIA:
We asked ourselves that question 17 immediately upon receipt of the information of the failure.
18 Cooper Bessemer is the manufacturer of that particular i
19 machine.
The Licensee had instituted a stop-trip program, i
20 post-trip review program that they used even in this instance i
21 to get to root cause.
And in going to the root cause it was 22 determined what the mechanism of the failure was, and based 23 upon records at Cooper Bessemer there were four articulating i
24 connecting rods that seemed to be repaired by this plating of l
25 iron when a rod was over-machined.
_ _ -... _ - - - ~ _ -. _ -
6 8
1 There were only four such rods indicated that had 2
been manufactured and shipped and in nuclear service.
Two of 3
those rods were in a machine that experienced a failure; one 4
that did fail, one other in the same diesel and a third in I
5 another diesel at Palo Verde in Unit 2.
They declared that 6
diesel inoperable, shut the unit down and removed it and 7
repaired it.
And the fourth was at Byron.
i 8
So from a generic, there are other instances where l
{
9 that repair technique has been used on non-high load stressed l
10 kinds of components that we're looking at further.
But i
11 immediate generic implications we think we've at least 4
1 12 addressed and corrective action has been taken, and we're
)
13 still dialoguing with both Palo Verde and the vendor, Cooper l
)
14 Bessemer, to follow up and get additional information on it.
I l
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL So what did Byron do?
They r
16 replaced -- somebody just handed me a piece of paper here that 17 says " engine completed".
They replaced the rod?
18 MR. MIRAGLIA:
They shut down and took that one
(
l 19 suspect rod out.
f 20 MR. STELIO:
As I understand it, what happened is i
21 they had an over-size hole drilled and they plated with 22 silver.
i' l
{
23 MR. MIRAGLIA:
It's iron.
It's an over-machined 24 part of the rod and to build back to the same thickness of 25 metal they iron plated, and the iron plating caused stress and l
4
e 9
1 fatigue cracking.
2 MR. STELLO:
And the reason they did is they didn't 3
want to have special parts in the machine.
You would think 4
they would just put a bigger pin in, but they didn't.
They 5
wanted to use the same parts, which is probably a logical 6
reason.
But the not result is that this process caused the 7
metallurgical-induced cracking of the rod.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Ion plati"g you said?
9 MR. MIRAGLIA:
I understood it was to be iron.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Oh, iron, I'm sorry.
11 MR. MIRAGLIA:
The FSAR review is essentially 12 complete.
There are one or two issues that we have under 13 review inhouse and we expect to be completed.
14 (Slide.)
15 Inspection.
There was a CAT inspection early last 16 year and a number of issues -- one issue on masonary walls was 17 found and has been addressed.
It has been resolved, repairs 18 are underway and we expect the repairs to be completed prior 19 to initial criticality.
And that's about the only things that 20 I would like to say on this one.
21 There is one matter in the antitrust area that's 22 been identified as between two co-owners regarding the use of 23 transmission facilities and I don't see that that's going to 24 be a bar to licensing, but it is another issue that's been 25 identified recently.
10 1
j 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, Judge Lazo, Judge 2
Rosenthal?
3 (No response.]
4 4
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Just as a matter of i
5 curiosity, does one get the sense after one and two that three 6
-- and two went a little better than one -- is three now 7
proceeding even better than one and two?
i 8
MR. MIRAGLIA:
I think one had a sort of rocky type 9
startup and had experienced some trips, some complications.
10 We saw a similar but fewer number pattern at number two.
11 We've expressed our concern to the utility about that and 12 we've met with them on several occasions.
The region is 4
i 13 meeting with them on I think a monthly basis regarding their i
l 14 operating experience.
I think we see an improvement, i
15 Certainly the lessons that they've learned in the J
16 operations of both Units 1 and 2, all the modifications and l
17 changes have been made in the third unit, and one would expect 18 the third unit to be even a smoother type startup.
They still i
i 19 have a fairly relaxed, stretched-out type of startup; they're l
20 not rushing it either, as I said.
Fuel load would be in March 21 and criticality isn't projected until June, so they still have 22 enough time and they are planning a large amount of time and I
23 not rushing that.
I 24 So one would expect to see it go even smoother for 25 the third.
They are building the corrections in as they go.
{
i..
.~
o 11 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
2 MR. NOVAK:
We will move along.
May I have the 4
3 Beaver Valley slide, please.
4 (Slide.]
5 As the slide indicates, the utility is forecasting 4
?
6 construction. completion in late April of this year.
The 4
7 Beaver Valley 2 unit is very similar in many regards to the 8
Unit 1.
It's basically an updated version of a three-loop 9
Westinghouse plant and they have made use of their operating 1
10 experience on Unit 1 so they'll have ample staffing.
They 11 have also had people from Shippingport that will be there as 12 well.
So we see a more than adequate number of people ready 13 for operation.
14 An interesting fact, though; they will not have 15 cross-licensing of the operators.
Their plans are to operate 16 these plants individually.
Unit 1 people will be licensed for 17 that utility for that plant, and then Unit 2 for the second I
18 unit.
And they're able to do that and they're able to provide 19 the number of experienced people.
20 Also as the slide indicates, they've been working 7
l 21 with the staff for an extended period of time looking at what t
l 22 would be proposed through what is called the broad rule change I
23 to GDC-4.
We have reviewed their submittals.
This has to do 24 with the -- if the rule is published in its present version, 25 it would permit removal of a number of pipe whip restraints l
l
O b
12
~
1 beyond just the primary system.
This would include things 2
like the pressurizer surge line, the accumulator lines and the 3
residual heat removal lines.
4 In the event -- and we do not predict now -- that 5
the broad rule would be issued in advance of licensing Beaver 6
Valley Unit 2, they will apply for a schedule exemption 7
basically through the first refueling.
We believe we can 8
support this so it will not re: Ult in any licensing delay.
9 As the slide indicates, this was an uncontested 10 plant and there are no allegations open at this time.
t 11 May I have the South Texas slide, please?
12 (Slide.]
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Nothing from Judge Lazo or Judge 1
14 Rosenthal?
15
[No response.]
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, thank you.
17 MR. NOVAK:
South Texas, of course, is what is 18 referred to as a RESAR-41 design.
It is a unique design as 19 far as Westinghouse plants in this country.
For example, it 20 has a 14-foot core, as all other light water reactors that 21 we've been seeing recently are 12-foot.
And also it has a 22 three-train system; that is, it has three on-site power 23 supplies, three diesels per unit, it has three RHR systems, 24 three emergency core cooling systems.
It follows, too, there j
25 are three cable spreading rooms, for example.
It's a very
13 1
large plant, it has abundant space for maintenance to contain 2
and it's a large dry containment.
It has some unique features 3
such as the ability for quick refueling.
4 So we have looked at that plant and as it says, we 5
have a number of issues still open but the plant is forecasted 6
to be ready for licensing in June and we expect to meet that 7
date.
We don't see any particular problems there.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
How long has that been under 9
construction?
When was that started?
10 MR. NOVAK:
Let me ask -- we do have the project 11 manager.
He is not the project manager who was here when the 12 plant started.
13 SPEAKER:
It was started in 1975, the construction i
14 activity.
15 MR. MIRAGLIA:
The CP was granted in about 1975.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So -- it's a Westinghouse 17 but it's not a SNUPPS.
I 18 MR. NOVAK:
It is not a SNUPPS.
It was called a 19 RESAR-41.
Westinghouse has envisioned this being kind of the 20 standard large, four-loop light water reactor plant.
21 You may want to see if the hearing boards have any 22 comments on this.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
Anything to say?
I think 24 we've probably completed action.
Judge Lazo, Judge Rosenthal?
25
' JUDGE ROSENTHAL:
Yes.
The Appeal Board signed off l
l
14 1
and I think the Commission signed off.
i 2
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, I think we have, too.
3 JUDGE ROSENTHAL:
It's entirely out of adjudication.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
5 MR. VOLLMER:
This particular one, Mr. Chairman, 6
does have a number of allegations open, and I think they have 7
been reviewed and there's nothing that we currently see to 8
interfere with the licensing process.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But you're still reviewing them.
10 MR. VOLLMER:
But they are under review, and I think 11 thc region has a feeling that there's going to be a fair 12 amount more on this case.
We'll just have to see on that.
13 MR. NOVAK:
May I have the Braidwood slide, please.
14
[ Slide.]
15 Braidwood Unit 1 is one of four duplicate units; the 16 Byron Station and the Braidwood' Station make up Commonwealth 17 Edison's four-unit duplicate plant concept.
These are all 18 four-loop Westinghouse reactor designs.
Unit 1 was completed i
19 last fall.
A fuel load license only has been issued pending a l
20 Board decision on a contention dealing with quality l
21 assurance.
It's expected -- and let me perhaps let the l
hearing board people respond to the schedule for that.
22 I
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Continue, and we'll get to them in a 24 minute.
l 25 MR. NOVAK:
The core was loaded in early November I
i
15 1
and they're now forecasting completing all of their I
2 pre-critical tests by the middle of March 1987.
Because of 3
when they last performed their full-scale emergency plan 4
drill, they have filed for an exemption.
This is because they 5
don't expect now -- or actually they've missed the date for 6
being ready for full power operation; they would have had to 7
do that by the fall of
'86, so they've asked for an exemption 8
and that's under review by the staff.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Judge Lazo?
10 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Chairman, the hearing record was 11 closed in November, and the Licensing Board is drafting a 12 decision.
There were 97 days of hearing in the case; it's a 13 lengthy record, but the latest word is they are still planning 14 to complete their decision and get it issued sometime by the 15 end of March.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
By the end of March this year.
17 JUDGE LAZO:
Yes, sir.
I 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Judge Rosenthal?
19 JUDGE ROSENTHAL:
We obviously will not become 20 involved until after that decision issues.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine, thank you.
22 MR. VOLLMER:
Of the remaining plants that we would 23 not foresee having a licensing decision in 1987 of course are 24 Comanche Peak 1 and 2, Watts Bar 1 and 2, Vogle 2, South Texas 25 2, Limerick 2 and Bellefonte 1 and 2.
Those are the active
- o 16 1
plants.
We have people here that could -- or we are able to 2
discuss issues on those plants if you choose or discuss more 3
some of the plants at low power or zero power license.
i 4
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Perhaps on any of those that you 5
feel that there's something that should come to the attention 6
of the Commission you might give us a very brief summary.
Is 7
there any of those plants that you think that we should be 8
concerned with at the moment?
9 MR. VOLLMER:
I think as far as Watts Bar 1 and 2 10 that is sort of being handled separately.
Vogle, South Texas 11 and Limerick are second units and we think it's likely that 12 they will proceed fairly routinely.
Bellefonte 1 and 2 is so 13 far off in the distance that I don't think we're prepared to 14 talk about that.
Which then leaves Comanche Peak, and we have 15 been working fairly actively with the Licensee on Comanche i
16 Peak to determine the status of that process and that project.
4 i
17 And I could summarize it for you by saying that we 18 believe that they are at a point where the problems seem to be 19 pretty well identified, the arms are around the problem but 20 the solution process is going to take a great deal of manpower 21 and time.
I think if my recollection is right they have j
22 something like 1000 or so engineering people working on that 23 plant right now; the numbers are enormous, going through in
'i 24 many cases almost 100 percent engineering revalidation of the 25 design of that plant.
In some cases, for examples, the pipe
o 17 1
hangers and so on, they're doing a fair amount of field 2
correction and modification.
3 There's a great deal of activity there, and again, I 4
think the most important point from my point of view, my 5
perspective is that they understand the problems; I think they 6
have reasonable engineering solutions where the designs cannot 7
be validated, and they're going through them one by one, 8
knocking them off and doing inspections and so on.
So I think 9
it's just a' process that will be ready to proceed to hearing 10 sometime later on this year and litigate the design 11 instruction issues at that time.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
13 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Chairman, the Licensing Board 14 thinks that the discovery on the CPRT program will be 15 completed in about five months and they very well might be 16 able to proceed to adjudicate at that time.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
This is Comanche Peak?
i 18 JUDGE LAZO:
Yes.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, thank you, j
20 MR. VOLLMER:
Bob, on the status of Shoreham and the l
21 formation of LIPA, do you want to comment on that?
22 MR. BERNERO:
Well, we just added another item of 23 information in the slides that are appended for your 24 information on Shoreham.
The Long Island Powe,r Authority was 25 constituted by an act of the New York Legislature to, in l
l
(
18 1
effect, subsume the Shoreham plant or the Long Island Lighting 2
Company.
And the company has just filed suit in federal court 3
to declare that unconstitutional.
We make no prediction of 4
what the outcome is, but it could affect the destiny of that 5
case.
6 Other than that, it is as Dick said; they 7
periodically take the plant up to do testing of some sort or 8
another and operate it at 4 percent power or thereabouts.
a l
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Judge Lazo, is there 10 anything further you'd like to say on that?
a 11 JUDGE LAZO:
No, sir, not really.
Except that I 12 think we should mention that the emergency planning exercise 13 hearing will probably start in late February or early March.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And do you have any idea how long 15 they're going to last?
16 JUDGE LAZO:
No, I can't say, sir, but I would think 17 that they would be several weeks.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
Judge Rosenthal, do you 19 have any further comment?
i 20 JUDGE ROSENTHAL:
No, sir.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Mr. Stello?
22 MR. STELLO:
We're through, Mr. Chairman, unless you 23 have specific questions.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
, uestions from my fellow Q
i 25 Commissioners?
Commissioner Bernthal?
i I
i 19 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I have a question on Nine 2
Mile Point 2.
When I visited there six months ago, last 3
summer I guess, they were pointing with pride to their ball 4
valves and telling us how wonderful they were, and it turns 4
5 out they leak and they've tried once to fix them I think and 6
haven't succeeded.
What's going on with those?
Are they ever 7
going to work?
8 MR. BERNERO:
The situation with the ball valves was 9.
that early in the test program, just before they got the low 10 power license, they were running into problems.
We gave them
^
11 the low power license, you recall, with an extensive condition 12 to do a great deal of testing in a prototype test program.
13 They had problems in two respects.
One was a unique latch 14 mechanism design which had a tendency to hang up and just make i
15 the valve not stroke at all.
And the other was that the 16 coated ball of the valve in such a large size was subject 17 to erosion or spalling of the coating and leading to leakage.
18 There has been an awful lot of work done on them; 19 many disassemblies and replatings.
They just filed with us a 20 short time ago a major reanalysis and body of test data from 21 all the work that's been done in the last couple of months.
22 They gave very serious consideration to change-out of those j
23 valves right now.
They own wide pattern globe valves that i
i 24 could replace them.
It wou,ld be a massive job, of course, a I
j 25 major perturbation in the schedule, j
f
f 20 1
But they looked at the valves and they concluded 2
that they could get their arms around the problem and solve 3
it.
We are right now in the process of reviewing that package 4
and right now I can't say the conclusion but in a week or so 5
we should be finished with our review.
The owners are i
6 confident that they have certainly a basis for reliable 7
operation and reliable leak tightness through the first fuel 8
cycle and quite'possibly for the entire life of the plant.
9 And they may not have to replace the valves at all.
10 We're reviewing the package right now and I'm 11 reluctant to say what our conclusion is.
But given that we 12 find this submittal acceptable, then they will be authorized 13 to go critical and carry on with the test program and with the 14 parallel confirmatory valve test program that they're already 1
15 committed to by the license as written.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I had one other question and 17 that was on Braidwood.
I gather that Braidwood is sort of l
18 moving ahead depending on the schedule of the Licensing Board
?>
\\
19 somewhat on some sort of parallel track.
Is that working all 20 right?
I think we've done that in --
I believe one of the
[
21 other Commonwealth plants did something essentially similar to 22 that.
23 MR. NOVAK:
Well, Commissioner Bernthal, they did 24 recognize that even with the zero power license they could i
25 complete their test program in advance of when they were E
4 21 1
estimating a decision would be made available from the Board.
2 They were originally scheduling to complete that by about 3
February.
Now as they see the fact that they now expect the 4
Board decision before March, they've just taken their time 5
doing it.
There also may be some interaction between the 6
Byron 2 startup and Braidwood, but that would be speculation 7
on my part.
8 But they, from the very start, committed to a very I
9 detailed, slow fuel load and pre-critical testing.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNIHAL:
That's all I had, thanks.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Just one question.
On the Palo 12 Verde Unit 3 I believe you said that all the units are going 13 to have operators qualified and operationally assigned to each 14 of the units, and they will not be interchanged.
15 MR. STELLO:
No, Beaver Valley.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Oh, that was Beaver Valley?
I see.
17 But how about Palo Verde?
18 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Palo Verde, the experience being 19 gained on the other units is being brought into the third 20 unit.
They will have operators that are cross-licensed, but 21 they will have a sufficient number of licensed operators to 22 man six shifts at all three units.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right, I saw that, too.
How about 1
24 Beaver Valley, then?
Why do you think they made that 25 decision?
Is there any good reason for that?
---7
._.,,.,,.,.-,,,--._,,,,,_,.,._.,.m__,,,,m_.____,
.,,,. _, _. _ -. ~.. _. _ _ _.,, _. _.
22 1
MR. NOVAK:
Yes, sir, I think there is.
I'll ask 2
Peter Tam, the Project Manager, for Beaver Valley.
3 MR. TAM:
I'm Peter Tam, the Licensing Project 4
Manager for Units 1 and 2 Beaver Valley.
They have been 5
thinking for a long time to have cross-licensing but 6
apparently in their dealing with Region I the message came 7
across loud and clear that because of the fact that the two 8
units differ by about 10 years, there are significant design 9
differences that it's difficult to justify cross-licensing.
10 So about four weeks ago there was a meeting at Region I in 11 which their Vice President for Operations presented a new 12 proposed organization in which the two units will be totally 13 separate in terms of operation.
The operators will be 14 licensed only on each unit.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Okay, fine.
Thank you.
Anything 16 else, then?
17 (No response.]
18 All right, we stand adjourned.
19 (Whereupon, at 2:42 p.m., the Commission meeting was 20 adjourned.]
21 22 23 24 25
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
5 6
7 TITLE OF MEETING:
Periodic Briefing on Near-Term Operating Licenses 8
PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING:
Thursday, January 29, 1987 10 c.-
11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
{'
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 18
' '*d--
f
/
/
~
19 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23
~
24 25 i
e
<---..-.w.-.
-,e
,w
BRIEFING OUTLINE OVERVIEW
SUMMARY
OF PLANiS WITHIN NEXT YEAR SELECTED PLANTS FOR DISCUSSION l
OVERVIEW 5 PLANTS WITH LOW POWER LICENSE 2 PLANTS WITH ZERO POWER LICENSE 18 PLANTS WITH OL APPLICATION DOCKETED 13 ACTIVE 5 INACTIVE 9 E PWR 1 W PWR 1 GE BWR 2 GE BWR 2 B8W PWR 1 B&W PWR 1 CE PWR 1 CE PWR
PLANTS WITH LOW POWER LICENSE PLANTS DATE ISSUED FULL POWER (EST)
SHOREHAM 7/03/85 NOT SCHEDULED CLINTON 9/29/86 3/87 NINE MILE POINT 2 10/31/86 3/87 V0GTLE 1 1/16/87 3/87 PLANTS WITH ZERO POWER LICENSE PLANTS DATE ISSUED LOW POWER (EST)
BRAIDWOOD 1 10/17/86 3/87 SEABROOK 1 10/17/86 NOT SCHEDULED PLANTS EXPECTED TO BE LICENSED FOR LOW POWER WITHIN NEXT YEAR PLANTS APPL DATE PALO VERDE 3 3/87 BEAVER VALLEY 2 4/87 SOUTH TEXAS 1 6/87 BRAIDWOOD 2 12/87 REMAINING PLANTS ACTIVE INACTIVE COMANCHE PEAK 1 AND 2 SEABROOK 2 WATTS BAR 1 AND 2 PERRY 2 V0GTLE 2 GRAND GULF 2 SOUTH TEXAS 2 WNP-1 LIMERICK 2 WNP-3 BELLEFONTE 1 AND 2
s SELICTED NTOL PLANTS FOR DISCUSSION PALO VERDE 3 BEAVER VALLEY 2 SOUTH TEXAS 1 DRAIDWOOD 1
)
PALO VERDE UNIT 3 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING IS UNDERWAY.
APPLICANT PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS MARCH 1987.
2.
FSAR REVIEW UNIT 1/2 REVIEW APPLICABLE TO UNIT 3.
REMAINING UNIT 3 ISSUES ARE PRE-SERVICE INSPECTION AND SHIFT STAFFING.
PRIOR TO LICENSING APPLICANT MUST COMPLETE MODIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF PRESSURIZER AUXILIARY SPRAY SYSTEM.
3.
INSPECTION NORMAL INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION AND PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING ACTIVITIES IS IN PROGRESS.
A CAT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED DURING JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1986.
AN ISSUE RESULTING FROM FINDINGS INVOLVES ADEGUACY OF MASONRY WALLS, WHICH IS BEING RESOLVED BY REINFORCING THE WALLS (T0 BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO INITIAL CRITICALITY.)
4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED: NO APPEALS ARE PENDING.
5.
ALLEGATIONS FIVE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
Q1 i
FOUR MATTERS UNDER REVIEW.
y------,,--.-,-..,,w--.....,-.
,,,----,.-.y
.,-,m,,_v-
,-----..----,,---,--,,-,,---.---,,,,,--,-nw-
o PALO VERDE UNIT 3 (CONT'D) 7.
OTHER CATASTROPHIC' FAILURE ON DECEMBER 23, 1986, OF AN EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR OCCURRED DURING TESTING.
RESOLUTION REQUIRED PRIOR TO LICENSING.
FUEL LOAD DATE MAY BE IMPACTED, ANTI-ThuST REVIEW HAS RECENTLY IDENTIFIED A DISPUTE BETWEEN A PALO VERDE C0-0WNER (El PAS 0) AND A COOPERATIVE (PLAINS ELECTRIC)
REGARDING THE USE OF TRANSMISSION FACILITIES, i
0 4
,,, _. - - ~ -
BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE APPLICANT ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION TO BE 98 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS APRIL 30, 1987, 2.
FSAR REVIEW THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR A SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION TO GDC 4 UNTIL THE BROAD SCOPE RULE IS APPROVED, 3.
INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION AND PRE 0PERATIONAL TEST INSPECTIONS ARE CURRENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES, AN ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROGRAM (IN PLACE OF IDI OR IDVP) IS ONG0ING, 4.
HEARINGS BEAVER VALLEY 2 PROCEEDING IS UNCONTESTED, 5.
ALLEGATIONS NO ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
QL NO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS,
o SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE APPLICANT ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION AT 97 PERCENT COMPLETE, APPLICANT'S FUEL LOAD DATE IS JUNE, 1987, 2.
FSAR REVIEW REMAINING ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE:
QUALIFIED DISPLAY PROCESSING SYSTEM, PIPE BREAK CRITERIA, ENVIRONMENTAL QUAllFi-CATION, AND EMERGENCY PLANNING, 3,
INSPECTIONS REGIONAL INSPECTION ~ PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH PLANT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, A CAT INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED IN NOVEMBER 1985 AND AN INSPECTION REPORT ISSUED IN FEBRUARY 1986.
ALL MAJOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, AN ENGINEERlNC ASSURANCE PROGRAM (IN LIEU OF AN IDI OR IDVP) IS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED IN FIRST-00ARTER 1987, 4.
HEARINGS ON AUGUST 29,1986, THE LICENSING BOARD ISSUED A DECISION DISPOSINC 0F ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF OPERATING LICENSES UPON COMPLETION OF THE STAFF REVIEW, THE APPEAL BOARD l
AFFIRMED THE LICENSING BOARD'S DECISION ON OCTOBER 8, 1986.
THE COMMISSION HAS DECIDED NOT TO REVIEW THIS DECISION, l
5.
ALLEGATIONS l
SEVENTEEN ALLEGATIONS OPEN,
SOUTH TEXAS UNIT 1 SIGhlFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 6.
QJI.
FIVE MATTERS UhDER REVIEW, 7.
OTHER SOUTH TEXAS IS THE ONLY RESAR 41 PLANT IN EXISTENCE, UNIQUE DESIGN FEATURE IS THE THREE TRAIN SYSTEM,
BRAIDWOOD UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE A FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICAL TEST LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17, 1986.
ALL PRECRITICAL TESTING IS SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION BY MARCH 13, 1987, 2.
LOW AND FULL POWER ISSUES A FAVORABLE LICENSING BOARD DECISION IS REQUIRED FOR LOW POWER LICENSING.
3.
INSPECTIONS REGIONAL INSPECTIONS FOLLOWING PRECRITICAL E0 DES OF OPERATION.
4.
HEARINGS HEARINGS ON THE OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION WERE COMPLETED ON MARCH 12, 1986; THIS MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE ASLB FOR DECISION.
ON APRIL 23, 1986, THE COMMISSION DISMISSED THE QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTENTION EXCEPT FOR THE ISSUE CONCERNING HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, RETAllATION AND OTHER DISCRIMINATION.
HEARINGS ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND SPANNED 97 DAYS BETWEEN MAY 6, 1986 AND NOVEMBER 26, 1986.
THE HEARING RECORD WAS OFFICIALLY CLOSED ON DECEMBER 17, 1986.
THE ASLB EXPECTS T0 ISSUE THEIR INITIAL DECISION BY MARCH 1987.
ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1986, THE ASLB GRANTED APPLICANT'S MOTION REQUESTING ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE AUTHORIZING FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICAL TESTING.
THIS ZER0 POWER LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17, 1986.
BRAIDWOOD UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) l S.
ALLEGATIONS FIFTEEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
Q1 THREE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW.
7.
QIBER THE APPLICANT H,AS FILED A REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION TO THE APPENDIX E RECulREMENT TO PERFORM A FULL PARTICIPATION i
EXERCISE WITHIN A YEAR OF FULL POWER LICENSING.
THE LAST FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE WAS HELD IN NOVEMBER 1985; THE NEXT EXERCISE (PARTIAL PARTICIPATION) IS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 1987.
THE LICENSEE'S EXEMPTION REQUEST IS UNDER REVIEW.
5 e
B
PLANTS WITH LOW OR ZERO POWER LICENSES SHOREHAM
- LITIGATION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING
- FORMATION OF LIPA CLINTON BRAIDWOOD
- LITIGATION ON CUAllTY ASSURANCE SEAER00K
- EMERGENCY PLANNING NINE MILE POINT 2
- MSIVs V0GTLE
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE AN OPERATING LICENSE (PERMITTING FUEL LOADING AND OPERATION TO 24 kWT) WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 7, 1984.
COLD CRITICALITY TESTING WAS COMPLETED ON FEBRUARY 17, 1965.
FIVE PERCENT LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 1985.
LOW POWER TESTING IS COMPLETE.
2.
FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUES REMAINING ISSUE CONCERNS EMERGENCY PLANNING: USING THE LICENSEE'S PLAN REQUlkES RESOLUTION OF ISSUES REMANDED TO THE LICENSING BOARD AND BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND LITIGATION OF THE EXERCISE.
3.
INSPECTIONS NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S OPERATIONS IS CONTINUING.
4.
HEARINGS THE ONLY REMAINING HEARING ISSUES RELATE TO 0FF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING.
THE APPEAL BOARD HAS AFFIRMED THE LICENSING BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT ALTHOUGH THE LILC0 EMERGENCY PLAN IS TECHNICALLY ADEQUATE, LILC0 LACKS LEGAL AUTHORITY T0 IMPLEMENT IT.
THE APPEAL BOARD FURTHER REMANDED ISSUES RELATING TO THE PLUME EPZ SIZE, ROLE CONFLICT OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS, PLANNING FOR HOSPITAL EVACUATIONS AND THE ADEQUACY OF RELOCATION CENTERS.
THE COMMISSION IN CL1-86-13 DEFERRED ITS REVIEW 0F THE LEGAL AUTHORITY ISSUE, AND REMANDED THE PROCEEDING BACK TO THE LICENSING BOARD FOR A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE LILC0 PLAN IS ADE0VATE ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WOULD ACTUALLY SEEK TO IMPLEMENT THE LILC0 PLAN IN THE EVENT
r l
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) l OF AN EMERGENCY, THE COMMISSION FURTHER SAID IT WOULD REVIEW THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE EPZ SIZE AND THE EVACUATION l
OF HOSPITALS, HEARINGS HAVE NOT YET BEGUN ON THE ISSUES l
REMANDED BY THE COMMISSION OR THE APPEAL BOARD.
LILC0 HAS l
PETITIONED FOR COMMISSION REVIEW 0F AN APPEAL BOARD AFFIRMATION OF A LICENSING BOARD DETERMINATION THAT RELOCATION CENTERS HAVE TO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO j
RAD 10 LOGICALLY MONITOR ALL EPZ EVACUEES WHO SEEK MONITORING.
l Ok JUNE 6, 1986, THE COMMISSION ORDERED THE LICENSING BOARD l
TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE FEBRUARY 13, 1986, EMERGENCY PLANNING EXERCISE OF THE LILC0 PLAN.
THESE HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED TO START IN MARCH, 1987, IN NOVEMBER, 1986, THE INTERVENORS PETIT 10NED TO RE0 PEN THE HEARING RECORD BECAUSE OF THE RECENT WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRIMARY EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM FROM PARTICIPATION UNDER l
THE LILC0 PLANS, THE LACK 0F A CURRENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE l
RED CROSS AND LILCO, AND THE ABSENCE OF CONGREGATE CARE CENTERS.
LILC0 HAS PETITIONED TO RE0 PEN THE HEARING TO DESIGNATE NEW RELOCATION CENTERS, 5.
ALLEGATIONS 1
l EIGHT ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
Q1 TWO MATTERS UNDER REVIEW, l
7, 0]ER l
ON JULY 3, 1986 THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A l
EILL, WHICH GOVERNOR CUOMC LATER SIGNED, CREATING THE LONG I
L
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, THE NEW AGENCY IS INSTRUCTED TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY CONCERNING A FRIENDLY TAKE0VER OF LILCO. IF LILC0 DOES NOT ACCEPT THE OFFER, THE NEW POWER AUTHORITY IS INSTRUCTED BY THE LEGISLATION TO INSTIGATE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.
THE LEGISLAT.10N PR0HIBITS THE AGENCY FROM CONSTRUCTING OR OPERAT1NG A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN ITS SERVICE AREA.
IT ALSO PROHIBITS LILC0 FROM REC 0VERING ANY OF THE COST OF SHOREHAM FROM THE RATEPAYERS IF THE PLANT IS NOT IN COMMERCIAL OPERATION BY DECEMBER 1, 1988.
LILC0 FILED SUIT IN U.S.
DISTRICT COURT ON JANUARY 14, 1987, TO HAVE THE LIPA BILL DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
CLINTON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSE ISSUED SEPTEMBER 29, 1986.
INITIAL CRITICALITY SCHEDULED FOR EARLY FEBRUARY, 1987.
FULL POWER LICENSE SCHEDULED FOR MARCH, 1987.
2.
FUL'l POWER ISSUES N0 MAJOR ISSUES REMAIN FOR FULL POWER LICENSING.
3.
INSPECTIONS INSPECTION ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN AUGMENTED IN THE AREAS OF MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS AFFECTING 00ALITY AND OPERATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE.
4.
liEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS WERE SETTLED BY NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES AND SETTLEMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD, 5.
ALLEGATIONS NINETEEN ALLEGATIONS ARE UNDER REVIEW.
6.
Q1 SEVEN MATTERS ARE UNDER REVIEW,
SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE A FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICAL TEST LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17, 1986.
PRECRITICAL TESTING IS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF JANUARY 1987.
2.
LOW AND FULL POWER ISSUES A FAVORABLE LICENSING BOARD DECISION AND A FAVORABLE COMMISSION DECISION ON ALAB 853 ARE REQUIRED FOR LOW POWER LICENSING.
MAJOR ISSUE REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED FOR FULL POWER LICENSING IS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.
3, INSPECTIONS REGIONAL INSPECTIONS FOLLOWING PRECRITICAL MODES OF OPERATION.
MAJOR TEAM INSPECTION CONDUCTED DURING NOVEMBER 1986 TO EXAMINE ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS.
4.
HEARINGS HEARINGS TO RECEIVE SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THREE CONTENTIONS (ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION AND ACTION LEVELS, CONTROL ROOM DESIGN) WERE CONCLUDED ON OCTOBER 3, 1986.
THE LICENSING BOARD IS EXPECTED TO ISSUE A DECISION BY LATE JANUARY 1987.
INTERVENORS/ INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE FILED A SERIES OF PETITIONS WITH THE ASLB OPPOSING THE ISSUANCE OF AN OPERATING LICENSE AUTHORIZING LOW POWER OPERATIONS, ON OCTOBER 7, 1986, THE ASLB ISSUED AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF NRR TO ISSUE A FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICAL TEST LICENSE.
THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17, 1980.
THE
SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
APPEAL BOARD-(ALAB-853) AFFIRMED THE BOARD'S OCTOBER 7TH ORDER; A PETITION FOR COMMISSION REVIEW WAS ACCEPTED ON JANUARY 9, 1987, THE COMMISSION ALSO STAYED ISSUANCE OF A LOW POWER LICENSE PENDING COMPLETION OF THEIR REVIEW, A MAJOR ISSUE REMAINING TO BE LITIGATED IS OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING.
THE MOST RECENT REVISION OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS WAS SUBMITTED IN SEPTEMBER, 1986.
THE LICENSING BOARD HAS SCHEDULED HEARINGS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS ON OR ABOUT MAY 27, 1987.
MASSACHUSETTS HAS NOT FORMALLY SUBMITTED ITS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS TO FEMA FOR REVIEW; FURTHERMORE, ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1986, THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS ANNOUNCED HIS DECISION THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO SUBMIT ANY SUCH
- PLANS, AN EXERCISE INVOLVING THE APPLICANT AND THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 26, 1986, A NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES OF THE TYPE REQUIRING A REMEDIAL EXERCISE WERE IDENTIFIED, ON DECEMBER 19, 1986, PSNH FILED A PETITION FOR A WAIVER (PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.758) 0F THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TEN MILE EPZ AT SEABROOK, THE PETITION IS BASED ON A NUMBER OF PROBABILISTIC STUDIES PSNH HAS HAD PREPARED AND IT REQUESTS A ONE MILE EPZ, THE PETITION IS UNDER STAFF REVIEW, THE LICENSING BOARD HAS CALLED FOR RESPONSES BY JANUARY 27, 1987; REQUESTS FOR A STAY OF THAT ORDER WERE DENIED BY THE APPEAL BOARD ON JANUARY 15, 1987, 5.
ALLEGATIONS SIX ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW,
SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 6.
01 NO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS, 7.
OTHER THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT UPDATE FOR STAFF REVIEW, THE STAFF EXPECTS TO MAKE A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF THE TECHNICAL ADEQUACY BY FEBRUARY 1987, ON DECEMBER 3, 1986, THE APPLICANT FORMALLY NOTIFIED NRC THAT IT IS INITIATING ACTIVITIES T0 " SURRENDER" THE SEABROOK UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (CPPR-136),
NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSE ISSUED OCTOBER 31, 1986.
FUEL LOAD COMPLETED NOVEMBER 15, 1986, 2.
FULL POWER ISSUES THE LOW POWER LICENSE CONTAINED AN EXEMPTION CONCERNING OPERABILITY OF THE MSIVs-UNTIL CRITICALITY TO ALLOW LATE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS TO BE CORRECTED CONCURRENT WITH FUEL
- LOAD, THESE BALL VALVES CONTINUE TO BE THE CRITICAL PATH
- ITEM, ON JANUARY 14, 1987, THE LICENSEE PROVIDED AN ANALYSIS TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED USE OF THE BALL VALVES FOR THE FIRST
- CYCLE, THE VALVES ARE CONTINUING TO HAVE LOCAL DELAMINATION OF THE BALLS, WHICH MAY RESULT IN INCREASED LEAKAGE WITH USE, THE STAFF IS EVALUATING THE ANALYSIS, 3.
INSPECTIONS INSPECTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDE SURVEILLANCES AND MODIFICATIONS AND TESTING OF THE MSIVs.
4.
HEARINGS NMP-2 PROCEEDING UNCONTESTED, 5,
ALLEGATIONS EIGHT ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6,
Q1 TWO MATTERS UNDER REVIEW,
i NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 7.
OTHER THE LOW POWER LICENSE CONTAINED AN EXEMPTION TO GDC 2 ALLOWING THE LICENSEE UNTIL THE FIRST REFUELING OUTAGE TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DOWNCOMERS TO DEMONSTRATE THE ADEQUACY OF THE DOWNCOMER DESIGN UNDER THE PLANT FAULTED CONDITION, ON DECEMBER 30, 1986 THE LICENSEE PROVIDED A
SUMMARY
OF EFFORTS AND PROGRESS ON THE DOWNCOMER ISSUE AND A SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE EFFORTS.
THE LICENSEE IS PRESENTLY PURSUING ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS WHICH IS TO BE SUBMITTED MAY 15, 1987.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE SUBMITTED BY MAY 15, 1988, THE FIRST REFUELING OUTAGE IS SCHEDULED FOR SPRING OR FALL OF 1989, e
V0GTLE UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE A LOW POWER LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 16, 1987.
INITIAL CRITICALITY IS SCHEDULED FOR EARLY MARCH, 1987, 2.
FULL POWER ISSUES REMAINING FULL POWER ISSUE IS COMPLETION OF SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM VERIFICATION ANE VALIDATION PROGRAM, 3.
INSPECTIONS APPLICANT COMPLETED TRIAL READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM TO SYSTEMATICALLY ASSESS CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY, SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED EARLY FOR RESOLUTION, NRC INSPECTIONS ENHANCED BY KEYING 0FF READINESS REVIEW, INSPECTION OF FUEL LOADING AND STARTUP ACTIVITIES IS
- UNDERWAY, 4.
HEARINGS A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION REGARDING GROUNDWATER & RADIATION EFFECTS ON CABLE WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 27, 1986.
AN APPEAL IS PENDING ON THIS PID, A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ADDRESSING ASCO VALVES WAS ISSUED DECEMBER 23, 1986, 5.
ALLEGATIONS FORTY-FIVE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
Q1 N0 ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS,
suuunnanvivryvmmmm p.
TPAHSMITTAL TO:
X Document Control Desk 016 Phillips
\\:
.i
/
ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room DATE:
3
\\
i 3
l:
3 :
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch 3 :"
e 3
3 a :
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting 3 i; document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and j j placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or j
m required.
"I l
Meeting
Title:
?&Le A. e-3 me-k o A w-
[ tr m
-.)
a 3 !
o e#d W b.acCAACS
)E 3 :
L J
! l Meeting Date:
I /:t9 &'7 Open _ Y Closed lj m
e m
l 3
l a
l c !
Item Description *:
Copies P_
3 Advanced DCS
$ j to POR g
- 8 5 l 2 l
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 5
5
'5 llll l
Q
()LC AIM f
l 4
3 m
=
3 i 3 l 2*
a :
3 l
B 2
N 3.
3 c
i a :
3 :
4.
3 i h
n a :.
R 3 i 5
3 :
5.
a m :
33a :
m :
6.
m :
3 ;
3aa
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
3 i C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY j :j papers.
1 3
m l
h YlYlhlhlklkllhl llhYYlhlklY\\
klb ib
-